Arthur Azevedo de Amorim

Testing noninterference, quickly

Information-flow control mechanisms are difficult to design and labor intensive to prove correct. To reduce the time wasted on proof attempts doomed to fail due to broken definitions, we advocate modern random testing techniques for finding counterexamples during the design process. We show how to use QuickCheck, a property-based random-testing tool, to guide the design of a simple information-flow abstract machine. We find that both sophisticated strategies for generating well-distributed random programs and readily falsifiable formulations of noninterference properties are critically important. We propose several approaches and evaluate their effectiveness on a collection of injected bugs of varying subtlety. We also present an effective technique for shrinking large counterexamples to minimal, easily comprehensible ones. Taken together, our best methods enable us to quickly and automatically generate simple counterexamples for all these bugs.

A verified information-flow architecture

SAFE is a clean-slate design for a highly secure computer system, with pervasive mechanisms for tracking and limiting information flows. At the lowest level, the SAFE hardware supports fine-grained programmable tags, with efficient and flexible propagation and combination of tags as instructions are executed. The operating system virtualizes these generic facilities to present an information-flow abstract machine that allows user programs to label sensitive data with rich confidentiality policies. We present a formal, machine-checked model of the key hardware and software mechanisms used to dynamically control information flow in SAFE and an end-to-end proof of noninterference for this model. We use a refinement proof methodology to propagate the noninterference property of the abstract machine down to the concrete machine level. We use an intermediate layer in the refinement chain that factors out the details of the information-flow control policy and devise a code generator for compiling such information-flow policies into low-level monitor code. Finally, we verify the correctness of this generator using a dedicated Hoare logic that abstracts from low-level machine instructions into a reusable set of verified structured code generators.

Beyond Good and Evil: Formalizing the Security Guarantees of Compartmentalizing Compilation

Compartmentalization is good security-engineering practice. By breaking a large software system into mutually distrustful components that run with minimal privileges, restricting their interactions to conform to well-defined interfaces, we can limit the damage caused by low-level attacks such as control-flow hijacking. When used to defend against such attacks, compartmentalization is often implemented cooperatively by a compiler and a low-level compartmentalization mechanism. However, the formal guarantees provided by such compartmentalizing compilation have seen surprisingly little investigation. We propose a new security property, secure compartmentalizing compilation (SCC), that formally characterizes the guarantees provided by compartmentalizing compilation and clarifies its attacker model. We reconstruct our property by starting from the well-established notion of fully abstract compilation, then identifying and lifting three important limitations that make standard full abstraction unsuitable for compartmentalization. The connection to full abstraction allows us to prove SCC by adapting established proof techniques, we illustrate this with a compiler from a simple unsafe imperative language with procedures to a compartmentalized abstract machine.

A semantic account of metric preservation

Program sensitivity measures how robust a program is to small changes in its input, and is a fundamental notion in domains ranging from differential privacy to cyber-physical systems. A natural way to formalize program sensitivity is in terms of metrics on the input and output spaces, requiring that an r-sensitive function map inputs that are at distance d to outputs that are at distance at most r · d. Program sensitivity is thus an analogue of Lipschitz continuity for programs. Reed and Pierce introduced Fuzz, a functional language with a linear type system that can express program sensitivity. They show soundness operationally, in the form of a metric preservation property. Inspired by their work, we study program sensitivity and metric preservation from a denotational point of view. In particular, we introduce metric CPOs, a novel semantic structure for reasoning about computation on metric spaces, by endowing CPOs with a compatible notion of distance. This structure is useful for reasoning about metric properties of programs, and specifically about program sensitivity. We demonstrate metric CPOs by giving a model for the deterministic fragment of Fuzz.

Really Natural Linear Indexed Type Checking

Recent works have shown the power of linear indexed type systems for enforcing complex program properties. These systems combine linear types with a language of type-level indices, allowing more fine-grained analyses. Such systems have been fruitfully applied in diverse domains, including implicit complexity and differential privacy. A natural way to enhance the expressiveness of this approach is by allowing the indices to depend on runtime information, in the spirit of dependent types. This approach is used in DFuzz, a language for differential privacy. The DFuzz type system relies on an index language supporting real and natural number arithmetic over constants and variables. Moreover, DFuzz uses a subtyping mechanism to make types more flexible. By themselves, linearity, dependency, and subtyping each require delicate handling when performing type checking or type inference; their combination increases this challenge substantially, as the features can interact in non-trivial ways. In this paper, we study the type-checking problem for DFuzz. We show how we can reduce type checking for (a simple extension of) DFuzz to constraint solving over a first-order theory of naturals and real numbers which, although undecidable, can often be handled in practice by standard numeric solvers.

The Meaning of Memory Safety

We give a rigorous characterization of what it means for a programming language to be memory safe, capturing the intuition that memory safety supports local reasoning about state. We formalize this principle in two ways. First, we show how a small memory-safe language validates a noninterference property: a program can neither affect nor be affected by unreachable parts of the state. Second, we extend separation logic, a proof system for heap-manipulating programs, with a memory-safe variant of its frame rule. The new rule is stronger because it applies even when parts of the program are buggy or malicious, but also weaker because it demands a stricter form of separation between parts of the program state. We also consider a number of pragmatically motivated variations on memory safety and the reasoning principles they support. As an application of our characterization, we evaluate the security of a previously proposed dynamic monitor for memory safety of heap-allocated data.

When Good Components Go Bad: Formally Secure Compilation Despite Dynamic Compromise

We propose a new formal criterion for evaluating secure compilation schemes for unsafe languages, expressing end-to-end security guarantees for software components that may become compromised after encountering undefined behavior---for example, by accessing an array out of bounds. Our criterion is the first to model dynamic compromise in a system of mutually distrustful components with clearly specified privileges. It articulates how each component should be protected from all the others---in particular, from components that have encountered undefined behavior and become compromised. Each component receives secure compilation guarantees---in particular, its internal invariants are protected from compromised components---up to the point when this component itself becomes compromised, after which we assume an attacker can take complete control and use this components privileges to attack other components. More precisely, a secure compilation chain must ensure that a dynamically compromised component cannot break the safety properties of the system at the target level any more than an arbitrary attacker-controlled component (with the same interface and privileges, but without undefined behaviors) already could at the source level. To illustrate the model, we construct a secure compilation chain for a small unsafe language with buffers, procedures, and components, targeting a simple abstract machine with built-in compartmentalization. We give a careful proof (mostly machine-checked in Coq) that this compiler satisfies our secure compilation criterion. Finally, we show that the protection guarantees offered by the compartmentalized abstract machine can be achieved at the machine-code level using either software fault isolation or a tag-based reference monitor.

Binding Operators for Nominal Sets

Abstract The theory of nominal sets is a rich mathematical framework for studying syntax and variable binding. Within it, we can describe several binding disciplines and derive convenient reasoning principles that respect α-equivalence. In this article, we introduce the notion of binding operator, a novel construction on nominal sets that unifies and generalizes many forms of binding proposed in the literature. We present general results about these operators, including sufficient conditions for validly using them in inductive definitions of nominal sets.